The use of callbacks and references in J.J. Abrams’ filmography is not without its detractors, particularly for Star Trek Into Darkness. Saying “they set up an entirely new timeline but are still calling back to other stories”, on the surface, makes so much sense as a criticism that the almost reflexive manner in which people made is understandable.
But I’m of the opinion that the film’s most infamous callback (where the death of Spock becomes the death of Kirk) is one of the strongest moments. It doesn’t simply make a reference for the sake of making a reference, nor does it “just” re-contextualize the original scene for new dramatic purposes, but that it is a reference is essential to the new drama, and makes for an effective inversion of the original scene.
Basically, if Wrath of Khan is about aging and legacy, and the death of Spock subverted our expectations of what Star Trek was, then Into Darkness is about youth and potential, and the death of Kirk serving as a reference was about fulfilling potential.
What We Remake
Before we get into this re-contextualization, we need to get into what Into Darkness is properly about, and what it’s more of a remake of. Rather than being a Wrath of Khan remake, it’s more of an Undiscovered Country remake with (essential) elements from the former.
In both Undiscovered Country and Into Darkness, Kirk’s fury over the death of a loved one is used to frame him as part of a conspiracy to further conflict with the Klingons. The difference in both films is found in the respective loved one; in Undiscovered Country, it’s his son David, while in Into Darkness its father figure Christopher Pike.
This reflects the similarity in the themes of these films. Undiscovered Country is about a Kirk who’s close to losing his way, and Into Darkness is about a Kirk who needs to find it. Shatner’s Kirk is being reminded of what Starfleet stands for, Pine’s is learning it properly for the first time. But the difference reflects their contrast; the loss of a son is a horrific blow to one’s legacy, one’s history, while a father figure is meant to represent who a person can grow to be.
Subverting Expectations for Legacy, Fulfilling Them for Origin
The common ground between aging and origin is something I looked at when writing about Batman V Superman, which told an origin story through the lens of an older Batman. Into Darkness does something similar in its utilization of Undiscovered Country and Wrath of Khan elements, using stories that originally pertained to legacy in a youthful context.
So before we get into the infamous scene in question, we’ll start with its predecessor.
The death of Spock thematically fits Wrath of Khan like a glove because it contrasts an expectation of a Star Trek story. This is an essential theme throughout the film, reflected in things like Kirk finally meeting his son, which showed the impact of one his many romantic escapades, as well as Khan himself. His introductory episode Space Seed ends with Khan and his crew being left to rule over an uninhabited planet, with Spock contemplating:
“It would be interesting Captain, to return to that world in a hundred years, and learn what crop had sprung from the seed you planted today.”
Wrath of Khan is about the impact Kirk’s actions have had on the world around him, as well as on him. His trekking throughout the stars has lead to all sorts of memorable adventures where they just barely escape the clutches of death thanks to to the ingenuity of the crew.
So in Wrath of Khan, once they’ve escaped the clutches of death, Kirk enthusiastically calls Scotty to congratulate him for saving the day. Kirk is then surprised when it’s Bones that answers. The person who answered wasn’t the person he was expecting, planting a seed of Kirk’s expectations being subverted.
It’s not Scotty that’s answering the call, and the clutches of death have not been so cleanly removed.
In his scene with David following Spock’s death, Kirk reflects that he hasn’t faced death. “I’ve cheated death, I’ve tricked my way out of death, and patted myself on the back for my ingenuity. I know nothing.”
And so we learn that this contrast of what we expect from a Star Trek story leads Kirk to wonder what exactly he’s accomplished in all these years.
ID, on the other hand, in being a story about potential, intentionally looks to the future. It’s about Jim Kirk properly becoming Captain Kirk, and it’s about an affirmation of his iconic friendship with Spock. And so, in this story about who Kirk has the potential to grow to be, his death scene being a reference to something we know is about him becoming the man we know.
One of the most effective ways the film accomplishes this is by harmonizing our knowledge of what is happening with the perspective of Spock as he learns what is happening.
Some (probably most) of the audience members will know about the scene that’s being called back to. We have a knowledge of it. Our expectations are not being subverted, but fulfilled. So while Wrath of Khan‘s Kirk enthusiastically assumes all is well and is surprised when Bones answers the call, Into Darkness’ Spock already has a sense that the day couldn’t have been saved that easily, and is speaking to the person Wrath of Khan’s Kirk was expecting to speak to.
When Scotty tells Spock “you’d better get down here, better hurry”, it doesn’t have the hesitant, disbelieving heartbreak that Bones has. Scotty knows that Spock has some understanding of what’s going on, and this understanding is reflected in his “yeah, it’s that bad” type of delivery.
This correlation of our understanding with Spock’s logic continues in his dialogue with Scotty. When he demands that Scotty open the door, Scotty responds with dialogue about the department being flooded, similar to what Bones says in Wrath of Khan. But while Bones is trying to convince Kirk of an inconvenient truth, Scotty is reminding Spock of something that he knows Spock is aware of. This gives thematic significance to the references while also standing on its own and being appropriate to the characters and drama in question.
This isn’t the only re-contextualization in the scene. There are moments like Spock saying “out of danger”: in Wrath of Khan he’s asking if the day is saved, whereas in Into Darkness he’s comforting a dying friend by letting him know he’s saved the day. But the most significant of the change comes from the dynamic between Kirk and Spock in this scene.
No longer a reflection of a great friendship, it’s an affirmation of one. They’re acknowledging each other’s traits, their strengths, what they’ve learned from each other in their short time together.
They also acknowledge things they don’t know about each other and themselves. Things they want to learn. Kirk is almost begging Spock to teach him to choose not to feel, which is something Spock doesn’t even understand about himself.
But the greatest way this scene reflects this affirmation of friendship, as well as its contrast with the scene in WoK, are the last lines spoken. In Wrath of Khan, Spock says “I have been and always shall be your friend.” Only he needs to say it, because they both know it, but in Into Darkness, they’re acknowledging this two-way street verbally for the first time. And so this is why Kirk says “I want you to know why I couldn’t let you die…why I went back for you”, with Spock completing responding “because you are my friend.”
And so we see the thematic necessity of the Into Darkness scene. Wrath of Khan serving as a reflection on the legacy of Kirk necessitated a subversion of expectations, whereas Into Darkness showing us Kirk’s potential requires an end point, that end point being something we know.
The Opposition
There are a few arguments that people tend to make regarding the Into Darkness that pertain to this scene. The first is that the stakes are undermined by Kirk being resurrected at the end of the film, and the other is that “they made an alternate reality to tell new stories but still used one of the most famous villains and scenes from the franchise.”
I’ll get into the first because it’s the simplest, and it’s the one I understand the most.
The re-contextualization of the scene in a youthful context adds another layer. A young Kirk affirming his potential by fulfilling the Wrath of Khan sacrifice leads to a new sort of tragedy; that of a life cut off too soon. All death is tragic, but a young death that is centered on fulfilling potential feels like a particular kind of injustice that needs to be rectified. It also allows for Spock to return the favor and save Kirk’s life, all while confronting Spock’s struggle with emotion.
Like, I get it. The climax feels rushed, and I think an extended scene where they show them getting Khan back to the Enterprise and saving Kirk would have benefited it. But I think it works.
As for the “new universe, yet Khan?” criticisms, I also “get” them but think they’re misguided.
For one, the film does tell a new story to this universe. The destruction of Vulcan being used as a sort of 9/11 for this universe starts a domino effect for this film, leading to an inspired new utilization of Khan. No longer Captain Ahab going after his great white whale, he’s Frankenstein’s monster, humiliated by being a worker drone for an “inferior being.” I think it’s an incredibly inspired, new take on the character.
But another problem with this is…what exactly do we mean by new? Yes, Star Trek is a series that’s about exploring strange new worlds and seeking out new life and new civilizations. But a new universe also leads to new opportunities for familiar characters and stories.
This is why why the new universe was even about the original characters in the first place. To be content with the prospect of new adventures of the original Enterprise crew is to be content with something that’s familiar, and that people are criticizing the Abrams films for (as some claim) being anti-Trek is to criticize them for not being similar enough to a familiar thing.
This gets into the subject of what a character or concept is. Nicholas Meyer gets into this a little bit in one of his two interview (that I know of) when discussing his thoughts on Into Darkness:
“I think, and I’ve made this analogy before, that Star Trek is a bottle into which different vintages can be poured. Over the years a lot of different vintages have been poured. To give you another way of looking at it: , if you know the Catholic mass you know that many composers have set that mass to music. You know that the Braham’s German Requiem has no relation to the Mozart Coronation Requiem, you would never know you were listening to the same piece because the music transforms the words, and the vintage may transform the bottle. So my reaction, and I remember somebody saying “Not your grandfather’s Star Trek” when they were talking about JJ’s stuff, and I was thinking I can’t really be a judge of this because it is so different from what I understood. I made a lot of changes when I came to Star Trek, because I used to say “Why are they all wearing pajamas?” And I made it into the NAVY, it was about the NAVY, but I didn’t think I changed the characters. I thought Kirk and Spock were who they were, and I think the biggest thing that shocked me about J.J.’s was Spock beating the shit out of somebody and thinking, “No, that’s changing the shape of the bottle.””
Now, I don’t entirely agree with Meyer’s assessment (I think exploring a furious Spock, especially in the light of the loss of his mother and the destruction of Vulcan, is a valid, fascinating concept), but what he says here leads me to the following question:
If we’re going to hold this new Star Trek and its characters to the standard of old Star Trek, then why can’t we do that in the films themselves? Yes, the alternate reality opened us up to new possibilities, but Star Trek needs some sense of identity and even familiarity if we’re going to create something new from it.
This is what Abrams and the writers are accomplishing with the Into Darkness callback. In establishing the Wrath of Khan sacrifice as a heroic standard and re-contextualizing the scene based on our knowledge of the events and Kirk being younger, they have created something new that for which a reference is not some cheap trick but essential to the narrative and themes of the story.
And it’s pretty great.
devilsadvocritic 